Item 6: Ordinance on Delta Sand and Gravel

Home Browse Search

in response (traffic totals from 1992, extrapolated for 2005) are insufficient. Exhibit 28. There is no way for the City to determine the frequency of the trips, which roads are being used, the timing in comparison to peak hour traffic on the effected roads, etc. Without such information, the City cannot make any determinations as to road capacity, for example, as required by OAR 660-023-180(5)(b)(B). The applicant’s representatives testified before the Planning Commissions that the economy and demand controlled what could be sold, that production had been increasing by approximately one percent per year, and that traffic on Hunsaker Lane would be the result of the projects that Delta was involved in. Avon Lee Babbs and George Staples, Planning Commission minutes January 17, 2006, pages 6, 7. If levels of use increase in the new excavation area because demand increases, then traffic will increase. This potential increase in traffic was not analyzed by the applicant. Without more detailed data establishing the site’s current traffic impacts or future demand for the excavated product, the assertion that the site will continue to have its current level of impact has little meaning. It provides no way for the City to assess the potential conflicts pursuant to OAR 660-023-180(5)(b)(B). Numerous participants raised Deleted: We find that approval of the application would not result in any concerns about current and continued conflicts with traffic to and from the site. See, e.g. conflicts to local roads used for access Exhibit 3, 7, 14, 16, 20, 21, 22, 23, 27, 275. In light of such testimony, the City finds that and egress to the mining site. the applicant’s response to this approval criterion is an insufficient basis on which to Deleted: Approval of the application would not result in any change in the determine if the criterion is met. As such, if the site were a significant resource, the applicant’s current use of local roads used application would fail based on this criterion. for access to and egress from its facility. The proposed expansion area would merely be an additional area of land, adjacent to the applicant’s existing facility, used by the applicant to provide (C) Safety conflicts with existing public airports due to bird attractants, i.e., the resource that it processes on its open water impoundments as specified under OAR Chapter 660, Division 013; existing site into a marketable product. No change or modification of the The Eugene Airport is the only existing public airport in the general metropolitan area and is applicant’s existing aggregate processing located several miles from the proposed expansion area and outside the impact area. Due to that methodology or facility or ingress/egress onto local roads would be required as a distance separating the airport from the proposed expansion area, we find that any bird attraction result of the proposed expansion of its by open water impoundment on the expansion area will be negligible if at all. Furthermore, this resource extraction site. Approval of the application would result only in the provision is no longer applicable since the December 23, 1996 effective date of adoption of applicant’s use of the proposed expansion division 13 of OAR Chapter 660, which carries out Chapter 285, Oregon Laws 1985. area as an additional, continual and consistent source of aggregate material needed for the continuation of the (D) Conflicts with other Goal 5 resource sites within the impact area that are applicant’s business, at its current level of shown on an acknowledged list of significant resources and for which the operation and production, at its current facility. We find that that use would not requirements of Goal 5 have been completed at the time the PAPA is initiated; result in any increase in the number of A meandering scar of the Willamette River (“East Santa Clara Waterway”) is located on a vehicles leaving or entering the applicant’s facility for the purpose of portion of the northwestern boundary of the expansion area and constitutes a wetland within the delivering its finished product to market. impact area. This waterway was added to the City’s and County’s Goal 5 inventories as a Furthermore, we find that that use would not result in an increase in the number of “Category D” stream, which requires a setback of 20 feet. No other Goal 5 resources shown on a third party vehicles servicing applicant’s Metro Plan acknowledged list of significant resources exist within the impact area. Lane County business. No increase in product delivery or service is associated with the has authorized a variance that would allow “construction” of the aquaclude inside the DEQ 150- applicant’s proposed addition to its foot mandatory setback, which would move the area of disturbance nearer this Goal 5 resource. . source of aggregate material; therefore, no conflicts to local roads would result The variance is to the DEQ setback, not the locally-adopted Goal 5 setback, and would not allow from approval of the application. any construction activities within the Goal 5 setback. The locally adopted Goal 5 setback along Deleted: Opponents have argued that a East Santa Clara Waterway of 20 feet would still be met. meandering scar of the Willamette River (“East Santa Clara Waterway”) is located on a portion of the northwestern The opponents argue that the existence and operation of the aquaclude (see discussion below boundary of the expansion area and that it constitutes a wetland regarding the aquaclude) will negatively impact the water levels and, consequently, the functions Deleted: further